United States v. Boston & M.R.R.

• Decision Date: 20 March 1920
• Docket Number: 692.
• Citation: 265 F. 800
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. BOSTON & M.R.R.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

265 F. 800

UNITED STATES v. BOSTON & M.R.R.

No. 692.

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

March 20, 1920

Thos J. Boynton, U.S. Atty., of Boston, Mass.

Charles S. Pierce and G. E. Kimball, both of Boston, Mass, for defendant.

MORTON District Judge.

This is an action to recover penalties for alleged violations of the Hours of Service Act (Comp. St. Secs. 8677-8680). The declaration contains 25 counts, each of which relates to a telegraph operator and charges that he was employed more than 9 hours in a station which was 'continuously operated night and day.' The case is heard upon an agreed statement of facts; no other evidence being introduced. In all of the counts the hours of employment alleged are more than 9; in many of them, more than 13; but as to these latter counts the government admits, and the agreed statement makes it plain, that there were off-duty periods which reduced the time of employment to less than 13 hours. So that in all the question is the same, as both parties agree, viz. whether the station was or was not 'continuously operated night and day' within the meaning of the statute.

The stations referred to are located in Arlington and in Amherst in this district. Neither town is of large size; Amherst is a country community, and Arlington a suburban one. The Arlington station was continuously kept open from 5:45 a.m to 9 p.m.; the Amherst one, apparently, from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m., although in several of the counts the operator there is alleged to have been on duty until after 9.

The statute in question is the Act of March 4, 1907, as amended by the Act of May 4, 1916, and the Act of September 5, 1916. The provisions on which this case turns are contained in the proviso of the second section, viz. that no person who dispatches or receives orders affecting train movements by telegraph shall be required or permitted to remain on duty for a longer period than 9 hours in 24, in stations 'continuously operated night and day, nor for a longer period than 13 hours in * * * stations operated only during the daytime. ' The provisions relating to emergencies etc., do not apply to this case.

The statute is anomalous, in that it regulates the length of time during which an operator may remain on duty, neither absolutely, nor with regard to his duties, but by the classification of the station where he happens to work. If it be a 'continuously operated' one, employment is limited to 9 hours per day, regardless of how slight the duties are; while, if it be classified as a 'daytime' station, the operator may be required to work 13 hours, no matter how exhausting his duties.

The meaning of the statute, as has been pointed out (U.S. v Atchison, T. & S.F.R.R., 220 U.S. 37, 31 Sup.Ct. 362, 55 L.Ed. 361; U.S. v. Atlantic Coast Line R.R. Co., 211 F. 897, 123 C.C.A. 275), is far from clear. It divides stations or...